写完了第一篇issue，马上要考了请大家帮忙指点一下^^多谢多谢~

icrainbowUID: 196307

题目:
"Reform is seldom brought about by people who are concerned with their own reputation and social standing. Those who are really in earnest about reforming a government, an educational system, or any other institution must be willing to be viewed with disdain by the rest of the world."
提纲
Position: 比较观点
Points:
1.        改革意味着什么：两层含意，一是对社会旧机器的或者旧有体制的革命，二是对社会生活方式或者生产方式的革新，这两者对改革者的要求不同，需要区别对待。就个人观点而言对前者同意作者观点，而后者则未必然。
2.        首先讨论前一种，社会旧机器或者旧有体制的革命需要不惮为人唾骂者进行大胆改革，主要有两点原因。一是题中所说既有名誉和社会地位的捍卫者往往属于社会中较高阶层，构成他们稳定生活根基的很大部分与旧体制有所牵连。另一方面只有为自己利益奋斗的强大动力才能驱使改革者无视其它人的意见而勇往直前，这也往往为他们赢得戏剧性的社会地位或者生活变化。举例：比如美国独立战争。所以在这个意义上作者的观点是成立的。
3.        其次就后一种革新来说，未必需要人们付出社会地位和名誉的代价，相反往往是具有一定社会影响力的人物来推动这些改革，因为这些革新往往涉及到科技，文化等方面。这些人物拥有较多的社会资源和力量。当然也有其它人能够进行革新。举例：牛顿，当然在这些革新中改革者往往也会遇到一些阻力，但是这并不对他们的地位或者名誉构成影响，往往只需要他们具有坚韧不拔的毅力和耐心。
4.        综上所述，作者过于笼统地下了决断，我们应该就具体情况具体分析。


        Is reform the exclusive process involving the people who are willing to be viewed with disdain by others, while leaving the reputation and social standing guarders aside? The speaker believes so,  but I think the assertion should be decided by specific circumstances.
         To reach the ultimate argument, I think it is important to know clearly what the word “reform” means in our discussion.  According to the speaker’s assumption, the reforms are performed on social architectures such as government, educational systems and so.  But this, insofar, still can not clearly define the concept.  I believe that the separation of reforms should be based on their initial causes.  Reform in the face of a oppressive dominator for his brutal laws is not the same as that to advance a certain educational system in favor of the children for their better schooling.  So thus we can divide reform into two kinds: one that is performed to shake the fundamental base of a certain social architecture for certain social groups’ benefit, and the other which is merely the inevitable consequence of the occurrence of new technologies or ideological trends. Having this prerequisite taken in consideration, I agree with the speaker talking about the former definition of reform, while the assertion, in my viewpoint, does not necessarily make sense when we come to the latter one.
         The first kind of reform, or in history sometimes also be considered revolution, can only be performed by those who have no fear of social distain, suppression or so.  Firstly this conclusion can be made empirically for the history itself is replete with supporting examples such as the very famous reform of the government on the land of America resulting of the independence and constitution of the United States.  Let us take a closer look at the examples and two reasons are there to seen.  On one hand, those who care a lot about their reputation and social standing are usually living on the top levels of the societal pyramid, foundation of which constitutes of the architectures that may be reformed and shivered, even cast down to collapse.  So understandably it is a paradox if they take part in the reform because this would amount to striving in the face of themselves.  On the other hand those who really performed the reform, that is the American revolutionists, in our example, also have every reason to do so because they are suffering from the old social engine, the colonial dominance to say, in the history.  Once people are driven by some fundamental reason to strive for their basic benefits, to be distained, or even brutally suppressed, just can do nothing to stop them due to their lower priority in the reformers’ consideration.  So by this means, I am on the same side of the speaker.
          Looking at another side of the mirror, we will get another assertion.  The world is complex, especially when we are talking about social problems.  Through our history review we can also see a lot of famous people with good social foundation promoting different kind of reforms, Newton being the best instance.  When we come to the fields of science and technology, or ideological realm, reforms have nothing to do with great and fundamental change of social basis and thus they are performed not only by the so-called riots, but also, and even more frequently by those who have outstanding fame and fortune.  Newton was an aristocrat and had deep interest in physics.  His theory of gravity, based on his attainment of previous theories such as Galileo’s earth-center assumption and countless scientific records of other scientists, brought a profound reform to the world of physics and thus changed people’s knowing of this world greatly in some extent.  The change and fluent acceptance of the society, admittedly had something to do with his reputation and social standing.  Stories of the same kind are happening more frequently in the field of ideological world, especially in social political life due to the government’s propogandation or certain reforming ideas or policies.   However, this is not to say only those top-level people have the power to promote reform.  Reform in scientific and ideological field are most due to how profound the new ideas and inventions can change our life style and knowing.  Anything like the vapor engine, the computer, or the world wide web can bring great and pleasing change to our world no matter who was the behinder in charge of the reforms.  This is the case especially in this era with no pressure on individuals and abundant resource access.  On balance, once one thing can be proven useful and reforming, reform will happen eventually and unconsciously with no consideration of who was the cause of reform.
         To sum up, the speaker over-generalized the concept of reform and considered only the target, but not the cause of the reform and thus arrived at an incomplete assertion.   Once being aware of what essentially leads to the reform, we can safely arrive at the right conclusion of the problem.

icrainbowUID: 196307

21号考，手还没练熟，希望多多提点问题出来才好，等回来share机经的说 呵呵多谢大家亚

乒乓球爱上九月UID: 162925

写的很详细呢 赞一个~
不过请先看一下格式要求好么?  帮别人先改改呢,这里提倡的是互改. :)